Problem being that there are limited paths through Birmingham New St. That's not the fault of any operator that's a national infrastructure thing.
Last edited:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
LNR new WCML timetable, May 2019 (in open data feeds)
- Thread starter pt_mad
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
Does not stop the chase line services terminating at birmingham though
Are you sure, if there's to be two an hour as well as a Walsall to London coming through New St as well as one in the other direction?
bramling
Veteran Member
I can understand Walsall having something of a London service, although being realistic how much demand really is there? The way to do it would of course have been to extend a London to Birmingham service there, not interferes with the Chase Line local service.
Limited paths at BHM are exactly what's stopping Chase Line services from terminating there!
I guess they could swap another route to run through, but the terminating trains are diesel, and so you'd need new hybrid trains or have diesels under the wires.
Point being though that you'd need paths for two terminating trains from the chase line per hour at Birmingham New Street. You'd need two extra slots.
These are attached to the London related slots at present so you don't have to find two extra slots.
Last edited:
What some posters appear to be suggesting which sounds near impossible is something like per hour through Birmingham:
3 X Euston to Birmingham, one extending to Walsall
2 X Birmingham to Liverpool
1 X Birmingham to Crewe
2 X Birmingham to Rugeley chase line
2 X Wolverhampton to Walsall
All in both directions whilst still:
Shrewsbury doubled to 2 per hour from previous 1
Extra peak Hereford services over previous 1 per hour
Cross city service
Lack of bay platform availability where Liverpools used to go.
3 X Euston to Birmingham, one extending to Walsall
2 X Birmingham to Liverpool
1 X Birmingham to Crewe
2 X Birmingham to Rugeley chase line
2 X Wolverhampton to Walsall
All in both directions whilst still:
Shrewsbury doubled to 2 per hour from previous 1
Extra peak Hereford services over previous 1 per hour
Cross city service
Lack of bay platform availability where Liverpools used to go.
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,236
And they still think that the Hereford service can be diverted to serve the Camp Hill Line when that reopens to local passengers in the next few years. I think that they will soon find that the Hereford trains at 2tph just will not cope even if they lengthen the trains to 4 or 6 car.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
Is it necessary to have 2 per hour wolves to walsall, surely 1 is enough considering the new timetable
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
Well why we need 2 an hour euston to rugeley is beyond me, is their really that much demand?
Is it about demand that there's two (rather than one) or is it about more services can run through Birmingham New Street in existing limited slots?
Example. If you terminated two from London at New St, you need two terminating slots plus two slots for the Chase line terminator to start and finish.
If you run two trains from London in and then out to Rugeley, you only need two through slots, not 4 terminating ones.
Last edited:
6026KingJohn
Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2019
- Messages
- 88
How about this?
Join the two WMR services together, Rugeley - Walsall - New Street -Stoke - Crewe (if there is capacity on the single line at Barthomley Junction), bonus 2TPH through Stoke.
Run the Euston - Birmingham services alternately through to Walsall or Wolverhampton (downside, one hour you have two Walsall and one Wolverhampton, the next you have two Wolverhampton and one Walsall). Alternatively send two to Walsall, one to Wolverhampton depending on turn round time (bay platform 5 at Wolverhampton only holds 4 so could not take 8 car trains).
Liverpool services could then run to/from International.
If the Rugeley Crewe were all stations there would be no need for the Wolverhampton - Walsall services, freeing up two class 323s.
Join the two WMR services together, Rugeley - Walsall - New Street -Stoke - Crewe (if there is capacity on the single line at Barthomley Junction), bonus 2TPH through Stoke.
Run the Euston - Birmingham services alternately through to Walsall or Wolverhampton (downside, one hour you have two Walsall and one Wolverhampton, the next you have two Wolverhampton and one Walsall). Alternatively send two to Walsall, one to Wolverhampton depending on turn round time (bay platform 5 at Wolverhampton only holds 4 so could not take 8 car trains).
Liverpool services could then run to/from International.
If the Rugeley Crewe were all stations there would be no need for the Wolverhampton - Walsall services, freeing up two class 323s.
You'd need 4 trains per hour between Walsall and Birmingham though. Rugeley to Crewe would be two of them. Presumably the London would be one, or two if it was in the alternative hour. So you'd need two London's from Walsall every hour for them not to lose Birmingham services in your example and same in the other direction.
Edit: Could that actually work? There'd have to be turn around time at Walsall for the 2tph, which presumably would need to be longer than is on the ex Wolverhampton presently, as the train would be starting from London.
The risk being if trains were late up form London, terminating short of Walsall isn't really going to be an attractive option is it?
On a side note Wolverhampton to Birmingham would be down 1tph as the current 2 Wolves to Walsall plus 1 Crewe would become two Rugeley - Birmingham - Crewe. Might go below minimum service specification?
Last edited:
6026KingJohn
Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2019
- Messages
- 88
Hence the next line about two to Walsall and one to Wolverhampton every hour. As Euston - New Street trains are 8 car (usually) the Walsall ones would need to go fast via Soho as stations via Aston will not take 8 coaches, which is why Rugeley to Crewe would have to take the place of the stopping trains.
As an afterthought, if the line through Stoke will not support an additional train each hour then one of the Rugeley trains could terminate at Wolverhampton in the bay.
Also Euston-Birmingham-Wolverhampton 8 coach train would need to terminate in one of the through platforms as the bay is not long enough
Aye but you couldn't alternate every hour between 2 from London terminating Walsall, then next hour Wolverhampton. It would need to be 2 terminating Walsall every hour.
Plus if you run them via Soho to Walsall do you miss any calls out which currently have 4 trains per hour served by the existing Wolves/Walsall and Chase services? If so might not be practical.
You've mentioned another issue as well there. 8 cars needed to Birmingham, and then what to do from there, keep 4 there and send 4 off to Walsall and receive 4 from Walsall to send 8 back to Euston? And if anything is late you're stuck with a set waiting at New St occupying a platform when it shouldn't be, up to twice an hour.
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,236
Walsall to Wolverhampton is all stations. All other trains stop at one of Smethwick Galton Bridge, Sandwell and Dudley or Coseley on the Stour Valley Line or fast to Tame Bridge Parkway on the Walsall/Rugeley line. Don't forget that there is a lot of local traffic between the stations on these two lines.
VT 390
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 1,366
But could they not stop some of the other services at the local stops and so that they all have at least 2tph but only 1 all stations?
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,236
Birmingham to Wolverhampton and Birmingham to Walsall are really two separate services which geographically make a V shape on the map. They both run through a built up urban area with many stations so there will be a lot of station to station traffic in addition to the traffic to the main cities.They just run through Birmingham as a single service for operational convenience. Yes there are people who do stay on the train through Birmingham but my guess is that there is probably a 95%+ turnover of passengers at Birmingham.
Now if you stop the long distance trains at more local stops you reduce the capacity on the line and you increase the travelling time for long distance passengers.
Different stopping patterns will result in some people having to take two trains on what is realistically possibly no more than a twenty minute journey or even worse having to double back. Explain that to commuters travelling to and from work.
In an ideal world all these lines would be fourtracked to separate long distance trains from local trains.but that is just not possible
VT 390
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 1,366
Is there not a short 4 track section near Dudley Port which could be used to loop stopping services?
6026KingJohn
Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2019
- Messages
- 88
Of the current 4tph from Walsall to Birmingham, two are all stations and two only call at Tame Bridge Parkway (usually the Rugeley ones). I was suggesting that the Rugeley trains become the stopping trains and that the 8 coach trains from Euston run via Soho calling at Tame Bridge (front unit only as it is a 5 coach platform) and terminate in platform 3 at Walsall (the usual terminating platform) which holds 9 coaches.
I am aware that Wolverhampton to Walsall is, in effect, two services joined for ease of operation. BUT so is Crewe-Birmingham, Birmingham-Rugeley. Stopping these trains at all stations does not impact on capacity as they are merely taking the place of existing trains.
VT 390
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 1,366
Would this not mean the 8 carriage Walsall ones would be mostly empty but the Rugeley ones would have few or no seats for people travelling to Birmingham from south of Walsall as almost all the stops would be on 2 of 4 services instead of more evenly spread out?
So you'd need an extra path for the second Rugeley to Crewe via Birmingham in the hour (between Wolves and Crewe), but your stopping pattern of stopping the London to Walsall at Tame Bridge and Crewe to Rugeley 2ph Chase line does appear to retain the same number of station calls as far as I can see?
The other train lost between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, i.e. previous two Wolverhampton to Walsall and one Crewe to London, would still be in place then? In the form of 2 X Crewe to Rugeley via Wolverhampton and Birmingham, and 1 X Wolverhampton to Euston per hour via Birmingham (the third train per hour to/from Euston). If I'm understanding you correctly?
Is it viable to run 8 cars up to Walsall twice an hour to turn the London's around or would that lead to a shortage of carriages on other services? I can understand it'd tick the box of only using short through slots at New St.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
None of it has worked. It is and remains an utter shambles, just like lots of us said it would be. I can't see it working unless they either acquire a load more 319s and recruit a load more staff to add huge amounts of recovery time at the outer ends (which won't work at Euston due to platform constraints) or they revert to a full separation of service at New St.
I'm sure it would be possible to operate it punctually (after all, VTWC operate a far longer distance and far more complex service largely punctually, and the XC Scotland-Plymouth run is usually on time) but they are trying to do it (just like Northern's cack-handed mess of a set of diagrams) on the cheap and it is not working.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
1 benefit of joined services is cheaper tickets, before it would have cost me £15 to get to coventry Now its £7
Split up services are more expensive unless you pay for each part of the journey separately
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
Possible for a second tph to crewe just need a second bit of track between alsager and crewe
Are their any 8 car trains on the chase line at the moment? both services split, is their enough demand for 8 cars? Unnecessary in my view. South WCML seem to need them more
I don't know about the other LNR routes because I don't use them but I use the Lime Street-Birmingham service and although the old service wasn't perfect I found it fairly reliable and could usually always get a seat. Now the rolling stock is totally inadequate for the new service and there's always problems, usually between Northampton and Euston, and usually delays as a result, if there's a train at all.
I'm often using the New Street-Crewe or New Street-Bank Quay route instead now and then changing to Liverpool from there.
If this was a backhanded way of giving more London trains to Liverpool then it's not the solution, it's only succeeded in ruining the Liverpool service to Birmingham. Other than people buying very cheap tickets you'd stick with the Virgin or just change at Crewe or Chester etc for other services, than sit on a horribly cramped train for the best part of 5 hours (and then all the way back again) in a grossly unreliably service. You'd want to be pretty much travelling for free to do that. There's no need to extend Lime Street-New Street past Birmingham International or possibly Coventry or Northampton.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It is not appropriate to "fix" the fares system by breaking the timetable. In any case, there is no reason why that should be the case. The fares are simply cheaper because LNR wanted to market the new through services.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If that was wanted, then extending the Trent Valley service would be the way to do it - that would actually achieve something useful, wouldn't cause much of a timetabling issue (provided the path could be found), and would actually give VT a very heavy kicking in competition terms too (as many on here like).
- Status